Farm Development Corporation v. Jose

On April 16, 1965, plaintiff, who is respondent and cross-appellant herein (hereinafter Farm Development), entered into two
agreements with the defendant, who is the appellant and cross-respondent herein (hereinafter Hernandez). Farm Development
is the owner and operator of substantial agricultural land holdings in Elmore County. Hernandez was and is a farmer who has
had extensive experience in the raising of sugar beets. Sugar beets had already been planted by Farm Development on its land,
were growing, and had been extensively fertilized by Farm Development prior to the date of the contract. Two separate contracts
were signed on the same day and contemplated that Hernandez was to raise the sugar beets with the costs and profits resulting
therefrom to be borne equally approximately between Farm Development and Hernandez. Hernandez, in addition, was to bear all
costs of harvest in hauling the beets to a beet dump and, in addition, was to reimburse Farm Development for one-half of the
costs of the previously applied fertilizer, which was stated to be "approximately 1300 pounds of 16-20-0 fertilizer" on each
acre of land. The contracts did not specifically define "crop" other than to indicate that only sugar beets were to be planted and raised.
No time limit was specified as to the occupancy of the farm by Hernandez other than the total running time of the two contracts.
There was no mention of any pasturage rights as being contemplated in the contract, and at the trial no local custom was shown
by clear and sufficient evidence as to the usual Disposition of fall pasturage rights. Fall pasturage in the sense used herein
is a pasturing of cattle, sheep or other grazing animals on the beet tops remaining on the field after the fall harvest is
completed and the sugar beet tubers hauled to market.